Rifle Scopes Best of the mid-priced rings?

[alnitak]

So, I was looking at the Burris XTR, Signature Zee, Warne, Vortex Viper, TPS and other similar priced rings. I would like to stay under $100 for a set of rings, preferably under $75.

I am shooting a Savage 10 P-SR in .308 with a 30mm Falcon Menace 4-14x44mm FFP scope. I have been reading this and other forums extensively for a week or so, and still can't decide. The Burris XTRs are mentioned often, though I am intrigued by the write up on the Vortex Viper rings (matched pair and kept together during the manufacturing process). I don't want to have to lap the rings and my scope base fits perfectly with no bedding required.

Based upon the scope ring calculator, it appears I need rings around 1" high. I like the simplicity of the Signature Zee, but they are among the highest (1.18" IIRC). The XTRs are nice, but some say the 6-screw rings limit placement on the rail/scope. I've read the ones like Vortex and Warne with the screws on top can be difficult to adjust. Since this is a short rifle and I will keep the stock in a traditional configuration (even when I replace the factory stock), I probably will go with aluminum rings to keep the weight down.

Given that, which of the mid-priced rings would you recommend?

Thanks for your advice.

 

[jjrgr21]

TPS

 

[BobinNC]

IOR Heavy Duty Tactical 30mm Rings

Seekins Precision Scope 30mm Rings

The IOR Alloy ones worked well for the one rifle I had them on and their quality was very good. But for an extra $24. get the Seekins, and you never have to think about ever upgrading....And go with the lowest 30mm rings you can find, you don't need 1" tall rings with a 44mm belled scope.

 

[Cdiver0109]

I've been extremely satisfied with my TPS rings. They're steel and lapped but I can't imagine you finding a better product for the money

 

[308garand]

I would recommend checking out the classifieds. I recently picked up a set of Seekins rings for $75. If your looking to buy new and stay under $100 you probably can't beat the TPS rings.

Nice rifle by the way. I just picked one of those up and I can't wait to get out and shoot it.

 

[Pat M]

Warne makes good affordable rings

 

[fdkay]

I used a set of weaver tactical rings (low) to mount my Falcon Menace 4-14 on my Savage that sports a varmint contour barrel.
I used a Weaver extended multi slot 20MOA rail.
Fits perfectly, the rings are quite solid and hold the scope very well. They can be a bit of a pain to get mounted onto the rail, but for 45 bucks, they are very good.
I have also used Weaver Grand Slam steel rings, they are very well made.

I have used Burris XTR rings, one set with no issues, the other set would let the scope slip in them.
SWFA also makes tactical style rings and they stand behind their products.

 

[alnitak]

Thanks all. Fdkay...I looked at the Weaver rings but was concerned about the quality. Based on your experience and comments from others, looks like I may be able to get away with low, or medium at worst, rings with the Falcon scope. Although 44m, OD of objective is 52mm, before BC caps. Guess will have to measure with scope "mounted" (pennies or modeling clay) before ordering the rings.

 

[SomeOtherGuy]

I've used several sets each of Warne's basic steel rings and the TPS TSR picatinny rings in aluminum, and have been very happy with both. I've also experiment with the Buckeye Optics rings on one scope, and they seem fine but I hesitate a bit with the newness of the company.

Tactical Aluminum Picatinny Scope Rings Mounts

 

[alnitak]

I've used several sets each of Warne's basic steel rings and the TPS TSR picatinny rings in aluminum, and have been very happy with both. I've also experiment with the Buckeye Optics rings on one scope, and they seem fine but I hesitate a bit with the newness of the company.

Tactical Aluminum Picatinny Scope Rings Mounts

Thanks for the reference...have not heard of them.

 

[rookie7]

I have all of those except for the vortex rings. I like the TPS rings the best.

 

[Pseum0]

i have some burris XTR rings, cant complain for now. but i can definitely see that there's some limitations on scope placement. it's kinda crowded with the vortex bubble level i have on there.

 

[MoBoost]

Tried 'em all - TPS for the win, regardless of price: flawless machine work, not too heavy, not too flimsy.

 

[JGorski]

TPS

Just got my 4th pair, 2nd pair of 30mm highs for the new 10-50x60mm Sightron.
These med TPS rings secure my 8-32x56mm Sightron tactical.

 

[JGorski]

Oh, both of my TPS 30MM rings are made of Aluminum alloy. Actually stronger than their steel version.

 

[260rem]

I have used most of the rings on your list and TPS were the best.

 

[diggler1833]

+ Another for TPS.

However, I also have used several sets, and have had great luck with IOR V-TAC (heavy duty) steel rings. I still have two pairs of those and have never had an issue.

The only tactical/picatinny rings and base that I ever had to lap were Burris XTR. My Leupold, Nightforce, IOR, TPS experiences have all been good.

 

[alnitak]

Seems like a consensus is emerging...will look at TPS.

 

[S/C-HD2002]

I have 6 pairs of TPS rings in various configurations (1", 30mm, 34mm, steel and aluminum) and they have all been great. That would be my vote too.

 

[emdeucee]

Ive ran a 0.80 low rings on my savage 10fcp with weaver 20moa base and a weaver 50mm objective lense (front bell is about 59mm). Not clearance issues except the butler creek caps are 0.5mm from touching. Therefore, get the lowest set of rings.

 

[alnitak]

Ive ran a 0.80 low rings on my savage 10fcp with weaver 20moa base and a weaver 50mm objective lense (front bell is about 59mm). Not clearance issues except the butler creek caps are 0.5mm from touching. Therefore, get the lowest set of rings.

Thanks for the advice. I used the scope ring calculator (here: Scope Ring Height and Clearance Calculator), and I guess either I don't understand or it is off. According to the calculator, with the outside objective at 52mm (per Falcon specs), BC cover at 2mm (though often 3mm is used), ring height at 0.8" and allowing 7mm for the 20 MOA mount, it says "Fail". So, in order to get 1/4" clearance, I need to be close to 1" height per the calculator. Guess I will just have to get the rifle and scope together and use some modeling clay to actually see and measure.

 

[emdeucee]

I tend to make my own measurements. Based on your dimensions, it should fit perfect. Take half of your objective bell measurement and add the caps (26mm+2mm=28mm) and that is your "minimum height" to clear. Take the 0.80 inch rings and add the base height (20mm + 7mm= 27.32mm). With that you are shy 0.68mm for perfect clearance, but there is one last factor. The barrel is not leveled with the top of the action. Expect about 5mm more clearance. Also the barrel tapers down from the barrel nut to the end of the barrel.

I have the same model as you do with a heavy barrel (1inch diameter from the action and 0.85 at the muzzle) and larger objective bell (59mm). But if you are like me and trust only yourself, i wont be offended!

 

[alnitak]

I tend to make my own measurements. Based on your dimensions, it should fit perfect. Take half of your objective bell measurement and add the caps (26mm+2mm=28mm) and that is your "minimum height" to clear. Take the 0.80 inch rings and add the base height (20mm + 7mm= 27.32mm). With that you are shy 0.68mm for perfect clearance, but there is one last factor. The barrel is not leveled with the top of the action. Expect about 5mm more clearance. Also the barrel tapers down from the barrel nut to the end of the barrel.

I have the same model as you do with a heavy barrel (1inch diameter from the action and 0.85 at the muzzle) and larger objective bell (59mm). But if you are like me and trust only yourself, i wont be offended!

No, no, no...I do not trust my own measurements! lol I appreciate your real world advice, especially with the same rifle/barrel (basically). The taper was one unknown I had (the rifle is still in transit), as was the difference between the barrel and the top of the receiver. It didn't make sense to me that the calculator kept pushing me towards high rings when my bell wasn't all that large...I figured medium at worst. Good to know I can use the low rings! Thanks for your help!